Rugby now more popular than football AND GAA?!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stuttgart88

In all walks of life one should question the prevailing conventional wisdom. If more Irish people had questioned the conventional wisdom of our economic boom we'd be in a much better place. I don't think the conventional wisdom surrounding rugby stacks up (overly positive), nor do I think the conventional wisdom of football does (overly negative).

I think rugby at the highest level (or any level) can be thrilling but the recent RWC, supposedly the highest level of all, totally failed to live up to what Qwerty says.

Bad and inconsistent refereeing (that altered the outcome of the final), below par performances from many teams, reckless behaviour from players and so on. Rugby players dive & cheat too. Marcus Horan in last year's Magners League final was pathetic. Rugby players serially disrupt ball illegally, "accidentally" get in the way of a full back who has just kicked a Garryowen and so on. Alan Quinlan's eye gouging of Leo Cullen? If rugby players could get an advantage by diving, they would. Why do you think lifting in the line-out was legalised? Because everyone was cheating by lifting in the lineout!

Football at the highest level can also be exhilerating. Barcelona's 5-0 win over Real last season was a thing of sheer beauty. Germany's dismantling of a good Argentina team in 2010. Barcelona's dismantling of Man United. Even the EPL that I am so quick to criticise threw up some really memorable games recently. The Christmas & New Year programme was one of the best ever.
Both sports have their ups and downs. Sure, certain parts of football are cringeworthy but I watch a lot of games and most pass off without anything I'd be embarrassed about. I personally think the WWF reference is apt: the EPL feels that any publicity is good publicity. Anything that keeps the sport on the back pages is good news, so the bad bits get plenty of airtime. The EPL & the FA should be ashamed of their efforts to properly enforce their "Respect" agenda.

But again, rugby isn't exempt. Leicester vs Northampton(?) witnessed a fight between both coaches and foul and abusive language towards the ref. Bloodgate at Harlequins. Delon Armitage!

Professional sport is a dirty business. The more professional rugby becomes, the dirtier it will get.

Wrt defensive tactics, I think proper enthusiasts of each code will appreciate tactical play if it bears results. I for one was very impressed by how England got to the final in RWC 2007 by ditching their usual game in favour of a dour tight game dependent on their front 3 (or 5). It wasn't pretty, but it worked. You play to your strengths. If the floating fan can't appreciate that, then that's his / her loss.

As for Matt Williams. His comments are bad enough, but the Irish Times sports editor's decision to publish them is worse, and further confirms my opinion that there is a deep-rooted institutional bias in the Irish media.

---

Don't get me started on the World Cup, there should not be a rugby world cup!! I won't even bother elaborating ...

Both games at their finest are outstanding, my personal preference at this time is rugby over soccer.

My dislike of the 'pussies' ( a Guardian write would say I'm a misogynist but it's OK as I'm in the U.S ) for want of a better word who dominate the game of soccer is pretty much all I have to put on the record!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Qwerty

Rugby is a far superior game to soccer when played at the _highest_ level - in addition there is no rampant cheating, diving and feigning injury. I'm embarrassed sometimes watching soccer at the antics grown men try and get away with. Waving imaginary yellow cards, so much BS in soccer today. It's almost like the WWF at times. I miss the old Division 1 days, the English game is dying ...

---

Really! I find a good rugby game doesn't even come close to a dull football game. Rugby is fannying around on top of each other for 80 minutes and then the game is decided by a last minute kick:D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bennocelt

Really! I find a good rugby game doesn't even come close to a dull football game. Rugby is fannying around on top of each other for 80 minutes and then the game is decided by a last minute kick:D

---

Couldn't agree more. Also so much of rugby is pre-rehearsed moves leading to a predictable, uninspiring play. And there is little to admire in terms of skills, pick it up, run with it, throw it, grapple. I know, I know - it's a very technical game blah, blah, blah. Horse manure!! So much technical rubbish spouted and then regurgitated by clowns who never stepped onto a rugby pitch. "He's a great 12 but he's not a 13". Groan....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PatJR

Couldn't agree more. Also so much of rugby is pre-rehearsed moves leading to a predictable, uninspiring play. And there is little to admire in terms of skills, pick it up, run with it, throw it, grapple. I know, I know - it's a very technical game blah, blah, blah. Horse manure!! So much technical rubbish spouted and then regurgitated by clowns who never stepped onto a rugby pitch. "He's a great 12 but he's not a 13". Groan....

---

you get the same from football fans "clearly he's not a full back, I don't know why he's not given a chance at, err, wing back (that's a thing, right?)"

I like that Munster type of dour end-game with a prolonged sequence of rucks and mauls, all building up to the last gasp winning drop goal from O'Gara.
It's a form of black humour.

Anyone else notice that Stutts has a definite anti-Munster bias?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Qwerty

Do you honestly think the idiots who engage in eye gouging are trying to blind their opponent?

---

Well they're not trying to tickle them...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Charlie Darwin

Well they're not trying to tickle them...

---

Most those found guilty of 'eye gouging' haven't touched the actual eye of their opponent. They are usually found guilty of 'inappropriate contact in the eye area' which is basically the face.

Shane Jennings got done for it based on the reaction of Nick Kennedy, who later said he over reacted.

It used be a ploy to run the hand over the face to scare the opposition into thinking you were going to gouge them, but I think that it has stopped now (don't think it has happened in the Heineken Cup this season so far.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bennocelt

Really! I find a good rugby game doesn't even come close to a dull football game. Rugby is fannying around on top of each other for 80 minutes and then the game is decided by a last minute kick:D

---

Rugby isn't the only sport that there can be a lot of fannying around. Hurling is probably the only all action game about.

Yeah but the reason Kennedy was so upset is because he thought somebody was going for his eyes. I know not every person actually goes for the eyes but that doesn't mean it doesn't or can't happen.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by janeymac

Most those found guilty of 'eye gouging' haven't touched the actual eye of their opponent. They are usually found guilty of 'inappropriate contact in the eye area' which is basically the face.

Shane Jennings got done for it based on the reaction of Nick Kennedy, who later said he over reacted.

It used be a ploy to run the hand over the face to scare the opposition into thinking you were going to gouge them

---

A rugby player over reacting? I thought they didn't do that.

Anyway, you make the whole pratice sound much more honourable now. I must cite rugby if I'm ever arrested for threatening to blind my neighbour next time he listens to loud music at 2am. If I actually follow through with my threat I can claim it was only inappropriate contact in the eye area :)

What kind of contact is appropriate in the eye area, just as a matter of interest?

I think people are getting lost in the particulars of the offence - eye-gouging is thuggery plain and simple, but it's not any supposed 'gentlemanliness' that the rugby folk might crow about: it's the fact there is a clear structure of law & punishment in the sport. Nobody questions the referees (and if you do you or your team is punished - yellow cards, reversed penalties etc.), nobody manhandles them & gives them verbal abuse; hell I've seen referees call players to task simply for swearing in their presence. And if an incident isn't caught by the referee during the match you can be damn sure it'll be cited & if found guilty, the player punished severely. Ok, some incidents slip through the net, but I'd say the hit-rate for the various citing boards is 80%-90%

Yes, the argument can be made that as a more physical & potentially dangerous sport, the associations have to police things more severely or else people get genuinely hurt; but that doesn't mean it shouldn't be held up to football as an example of where the sport could be.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by janeymac

Rugby isn't the only sport that there can be a lot of fannying around. Hurling is probably the only all action game about.

---

yep I have to agree there

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by janeymac

Rugby isn't the only sport that there can be a lot of fannying around. Hurling is probably the only all action game about.

---

Ice hockey?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fixer82

yep I have to agree there

---

Personally dont see the big draw with hurling. Its a good game and I usually go to a handful of games each year but not as good as some exalt it to be. Like rugby it suffers from lack of competition, meaning the number of really top class games in the championship every year are minimal. Often find with hurling matches that you could just tune into the last 20 mins and you'd have not missed too much. Like football the game can be ruined somewhat with frees and scores are relatively easily got compared to other sports.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Qwerty

Do you honestly think the idiots who engage in eye gouging are trying to blind their opponent?

---

What a stupid comment. I've only read over the last couple of pages of this thread but you have gone from having a proper debate to blindly defending the indefensible! How can you say they are not trying to blind somebody? You say it is a gentlemanly game? Yet these so called gentlemen are too stupid to think by sticking their fingers in another person’s eye, it will not cause damage?

There is a difference between gouging and unintentional contact. If you have seen real eye gouging then you would know the only reason to do it is to inflict pain and injury. There is no other reason. It is the lowest of the low that do these things.

The problem with rugby is its blatant double standards when it comes to discipline. There is a huge difference in punishments handed out to different players, in different countries for the same offences.

Anyone else watching the U20'S - have to listen to Italian commentary!!

it's live on rte.ie/live with English commentary

Thanks Tets - but no access in London.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Qwerty

I'm talking about entertainment value, I'm talking about a real engaging contest particularly in the Southern Hemisphere.

---

A what? Australia win at home, New Zealand win at home, South Africa win at home. Where's the contest?

The first game the egg-chasers really had to win in the WC, they lost in the first 5 minutes. Since then, they've only got worse. The postponement in Paris just delayed the customary defeat there by 3 weeks.

This debate won't be an issue should we get out of the group this summer.

Why does it matter which is 'better'?

Let the people who enjoy soccer appreciate that and similarly with rugby/GAA. There is room for all four you know...

Ironically the one we generally prefer, we'll always be 'least good at' (even below cricket!), unless a load of Brazilians or similar enter the gene pool.